On Thu 08-08-24 20:00:58, Hailong Liu wrote:
> The __vmap_pages_range_noflush() assumes its argument pages** contains
> pages with the same page shift. However, since commit e9c3cda4d86e
> (mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations), if gfp_flags
> includes __GFP_NOFAIL with high order in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> and page allocation failed for high order, the pages** may contain
> two different page shifts (high order and order-0). This could
> lead __vmap_pages_range_noflush() to perform incorrect mappings,
> potentially resulting in memory corruption.
>
> Users might encounter this as follows (vmap_allow_huge = true, 2M is for PMD_SIZE):
> kvmalloc(2M, __GFP_NOFAIL|GFP_X)
> __vmalloc_node_range_noprof(vm_flags=VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)
> vm_area_alloc_pages(order=9) ---> order-9 allocation failed and fallback to order-0
> vmap_pages_range()
> vmap_pages_range_noflush()
> __vmap_pages_range_noflush(page_shift = 21) ----> wrong mapping happens
>
> We can remove the fallback code because if a high-order
> allocation fails, __vmalloc_node_range_noprof() will retry with
> order-0. Therefore, it is unnecessary to fallback to order-0
> here. Therefore, fix this by removing the fallback code.
>
> Fixes: e9c3cda4d86e ("mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations")
> Signed-off-by: Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@xxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Tangquan.Zheng <zhengtangquan@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmalloc.c | 11 ++---------
> mm/vmalloc.c.rej | 10 ++++++++++
What is this?
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 mm/vmalloc.c.rej
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 6b783baf12a1..af2de36549d6 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -3584,15 +3584,8 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> page = alloc_pages_noprof(alloc_gfp, order);
> else
> page = alloc_pages_node_noprof(nid, alloc_gfp, order);
> - if (unlikely(!page)) {
> - if (!nofail)
> - break;
> -
> - /* fall back to the zero order allocations */
> - alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOFAIL;
> - order = 0;
> - continue;
> - }
> + if (unlikely(!page))
> + break;
This just makes the NOFAIL allocation fail. So this is not a correct
fix.
>
> /*
> * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
